Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39084899›Full record

ArticleMedical humanities2024

Living happily alone in Plato's cave? On loneliness, technology and the metaphysics of presence.

Clemet Askheim, Eivind Engebretsen, Marit Haldar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical humanities, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Clemet AskheimDepartment of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway clemet.askheim@oslomet.no.
Eivind EngebretsenSustainable Health Unit, University of Oslo Faculty of Medicine, Oslo, Norway.
Marit HaldarDepartment of Social Work, Child Welfare and Social Policy, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a lot of research on loneliness and technology, there is an underlying premise that actual, physical presence is more real than 'virtual' presence. This premise is rarely explicit, yet it implies a hierarchy of reality, where the 'here and now' is always on top. In this theoretical paper, we examine this latent hierarchy and the understandings of presence and mediation it implies. We point towards potential consequences of this understanding for research on the role of technology in reducing loneliness and social isolation. To do this, we draw on the philosophical analysis made by Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida of what they called 'the metaphysics of presence'. This is the tendency to privilege presence as the only immediate and truthful access to reality, whereas all forms of mediations constitute mere approximations, derivations and second-rate realities with dubious truth value. First, we present their diagnosis, and then we show how it pertains to research on virtual presence and loneliness by analysing some examples from this research. Finally, we discuss some potential implications of the metaphysics of presence through a case story compiled from our empirical research. Our foundational assertion is that the question of whether anyone experiences loneliness is an empirical and not a metaphysical question. If we want to properly understand loneliness and the potential for alleviating it through the use of teletechnologies, we might get off on the wrong foot if we carry with us assumptions suggesting the existence of ascending levels of reality and presence.

Indexed as

LonelinessMetaphysicsTechnologyCavesHumansSocial IsolationMedical humanitiesphilosophy of sciencePublic healthSocial scienceTelevision

Identifiers

PMID39084899
PMCPMC11503198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.